P.s if you read my comment about using an external source (I mentioned mouse movement or sound output) however that's still not actually random because all you need to do is have the same movement or "external source situation"..
but as I said don't want to get drawn into an argument.
You made an unqualified, declarative statement before that. Only when I'd mentioned true random number generation did you go off and Google it. Then you came back and spewed something which had the effect of reversing your original assertion.
You don't want to get drawn into an argument because you're wrong. Be a big man and admit it. I do when I'm wrong...
I think the problem started when Hyperactive said
causing over 9000 people to pick that one. We did seem to pick up 7 though, supposedly being the second most common number people pick
At my previous job a guy called Kieth (who was the technical manager, and believe he is probably more knowledgable than you no offense) and I were chatting about increasing security on something or other and I suggested using a random number generator on some sort of ID so it couldn't be cloned. He said that there could never be a truly random number generator, at the time I didn't believe him, but I researched it a little and came to the conclusion he's right.
My original statement was that there wasn't a computer based 100% random number generator - and there isn't - external sources can be recreated and if conditions are the same the same random number could be generated.
I don't want to get drawn into an argument because that's the adult thing to do. I think what I said is right, where as you think what I said is wrong.
So I'm saying let's agree to disagree and go back about our business, in my case playing Battlefield (Free M95 haha)
Ahaha S14. it is fact that all knowledge based on "a guy named Kieth" is sound and fair evidence. I like the way you suggest that he is ultimately more knowledgeable on a subject against someone whom you don't even know. This ultimately means that you sir need to
I don't think it means anything because even human brain doesn't pick a number randomly. Just the mere fact the you know you're supposed to pick a random number affects your decision.
no surprise how popular 7 is, read somewhere that it's by far the most popular choice between 0 and 9, there was some scientific reason behind it but i can't remember it as it was about 25 years ago
He ventured a piece of wrong information in the thread with no provocation that was along the lines of "here's a piece of information to validate how smart I am". Once I pointed out what he said was incorrect he changed his mind and then he changed it back again.
See:
Both of the above leave no possibility for truly random number generation.
This leaves the possibility for truly random number generation (I suspect after he went off to Google and read a couple of links).
This goes back to leaving no possibility for truly random number generation.
At no point has he cited any sources that prove random number generation using computers (along with input devices) is impossible, despite finally settling on that point of view.
The reason I picked up on it is because it's something he has done several times before (i.e. providing inaccurate or misleading information in an authoritative manner). People who don't know any better would have read his post and taken it as true.
Well, it seems like he's settled on saying that's not true, but it's difficult to say for certain. Perhaps the only truly random thing in this thread has been his view on random number generation
I'm not sure why you've used Scottish/Scotsman etc in such a pejorative manner several times in this thread.
I don't have to cite sources. This is not a university paper or a document I am selling. It's a forum. I have better things to do, like play BF P4F with bmxtwins
Can't cite the source ( ) as I was reading it at work and don't have the URL anymore, but I read something saying that because the 'average' person considers themselves to not be 'average', they will deliberately pick a number that they think all the other 'average' people won't have picked. So you end up with everyone picking the same numbers in a misguided attempt to be different, not realising that everyone else has tried to be different in exactly the same way.
Which is kind of a metaphor for the whole of modern life
To be fair, a computer-generated random number seeded from a naturally-occurring source (as in your example; background radiation) isn't really a computer-generated random number. The random element occurred outside the computer, all the computer did was modify the result into something more useful.
aw come on amp ive already pointed out on irc that youre arguing over tiny mistakes in semantics
and for the record no you cannot generate random numbers you can only observe them
and even then theyre only random to the best of our current understanding of how the world works
An odd number (more interesting in terms of randomness)
A prime number (as above)
Not at the beginning or end (not random enough)
Not 1 (1 is too boring to be sufficiently random)
Not 5 (5 is too central in a list of numbers to be random)
This leaves only 3 and 7
And everyone knows that 7 is clearly a better random number
Would you agree that there's a difference between something being possible and impossible?
Every day true random number generation techniques are used for such mundane things as encrypting sensitive information and gambling. You (and Keith) maintain this is impossible. The semantics matter.
Of course there's a difference between possible (flying to New Zealand, perhaps) and impossible (being able to lick Rihanna dry after a shower).
And as I've said any external source is not being generated as such (generation being "rand#" with a code or something). Saying that "external radiaton n2^-6³/10 + 2" is not random because it can be recreated. Ughtternkjgrjkgrjkgr seriously I'm going to bed now.
) as I was reading it at work and don't have the URL anymore, but I read something saying that because the 'average' person considers themselves to not be 'average', they will deliberately pick a number that they think all the other 'average' people won't have picked. So you end up with everyone picking the same numbers in a misguided attempt to be different, not realising that everyone else has tried to be different in exactly the same way.
